Muslim Brotherhood prepares for protests as US warns Egyptian military

Somehow I think we've been here before. Following the announcements by the Egyptian military, the Muslim Brotherhood is preparing to take to the streets to protest what sounds like considerable overreach by the military.

The announcements proclaimed that the new president would only be transitional and that the military would be fully responsible for their own budget and management, regardless of what the president may or may not do. At the same time, the military reiterated its agreement to hand over power, or at least, whatever power exists outside of the military.

The US has warned the military that failure to hand over power could result in the loss of billions of dollars each year, though the wording and meaning is still vague. While the US is eager to move forward with a new government, there remains a level of concern over what may happen with a Muslim Brotherhood regime.

More from The Guardian on potential street protests in Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood has vowed to face down Egypt's ruling generals in a "life or death" struggle over the country's political future, after declaring that its candidate had won the presidential election and would refuse to accept the junta's last-ditch attempts to engineer a constitutional coup.

As final ballot results trickled in and unofficial tallies suggested that Mohamed Morsi had secured approximately 52% of the popular vote, the Brotherhood deployed its harshest language yet against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf), promising to bring millions of Egyptians back on to the streets if attempts to rebuild the old regime continued.

"Over the past 18 months we were very keen to avoid any clashes or confrontations with other components of Egypt's political system because we felt that it would have negative consequences for the democratic system and for society as a whole," said Fatema AbouZeid, a senior policy researcher for the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party and a media co-ordinator for the Morsi campaign. "But now it's very clear that Scaf and other institutions of the state are determined to stand in the way of what we're trying to achieve, and we won't accept this any more. Egypt will not go back to the old regime through any means, legal or illegal.

Read the rest of this post...

My friend Dave recreates a photo of his dad in Belgium during WWII

This is a neat story.  My friend Dave Stirpe was on business in Belgium recently and decided to bring along some photos of his dad who served in Belgium (and I suspect other places) during WWII building floating bridges.  Dave had one picture in particular that he wanted to recreate.

Dave's dad, Michael Stirpe in WWII

Here's a little of Dave's story, from ArmyLive:

As I arrived in Namur, I stopped at an information booth near the train station to obtain a map. A young lady pointed the way to the River Meuse and the wrought iron fence that she saw in the picture. I walked past a beautifully restored city center and arrived at the river. I was shocked to see the same elaborately detailed wrought iron fence that was clearly visible in several pictures that I had taken along with me. I could identify a string of buildings across the river that were also in the picture, even though taller buildings had been constructed over the decades.

While 68 years had passed, it was eerily similar. I used my bad French to ask passing strangers to snap pictures of me in the same pose that “mon pere” had made along the fence until I finally approved of a picture that was nearly identical. The locals were interested in my collection of pictures and in the story that my Dad had served there in WWII.

Dave, at the same location, nearly 70 years later.

Read the rest of this post...

EU & IMF to renegotiate Greek bailout for 3rd time

Why would anyone think the third attempt will be any better or fair to Greece than the previous two attempts? Outside of their echo chamber, few believed the previous bailouts would solve the problem and just as many have concerns with any new plan that doesn't include at least a partial default.

The earlier bailouts were mostly about the banks and unless there's a radical change within the EU and IMF, it will be the same story this time. What does it say about previous negotiations if they are now saying that the February 2012 bailout is now outdated?

International lenders and Greece will renegotiate the program on which the second financial bailout for Athens is based because the original has become outdated, a senior euro zone official said on Tuesday.

Greece secured a second, 130-billion-euro bailout package in February from Europe and the International Monetary Fund, but two general elections in May and June delayed the implementation of the conditions attached to the bailout.

The United States, the largest IMF member, said it supports discussions to review the Greek bailout program, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that any loosening of Greece's reform promises would be unacceptable.

If the EU and IMF are serious, they will forget about what is good for the banks and think more about the people of Greece this time. But don't hold your breath. Read the rest of this post...

Latina media legend Cristina Saralegui endorses Obama

Featureflash / Shutterstock.com

Popular talk show host Cristina Saralegui announced her endorsement of President Barack Obama on Monday, the first time the Latina television legend has ever publicly endorsed a presidential candidate.

"Hispanics could very well decide the next election, and I will do everything I can from now until November to ensure that President Obama is reelected. There's simply too much at stake," she said in a statement.

The Cuban-American icon is popularly known among Spanish-speaking television viewers as the "Latina Oprah," whose eponymous Univision talk show was a ratings juggernaut and Latino household staple for nearly two decades.

The Obama campaign touted the endorsement, with spokesman Jim Messina adding that Saralegui is “one of the most trusted names in the Hispanic community [...] We’re honored to have Cristina be a spokesperson for the campaign, speaking directly to Hispanic voters about the President’s accomplishments."

Obama is currently enjoying a huge lead with registered Latino voters over presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, 61% to 27%. This polling has yet to reflect Obama's recent immigration order, which stops the deportation of DREAM Act-eligible undocumented youth.

In response to the president's immigration move, a beleaguered Marco Rubio said that the Republican alternative to the DREAM Act would likely be shelved until after the election, leaving the GOP little alternatives to offer Latino voters in November.

An immigrant who fled the Cuban Revolution with her parents at age 12 , Saralegui's unique journalistic style — every Cristina began with a double thumbs-up salute and the Cuban expression "Pa'lante, pa'lante, pa'tras ni pa' coger impulso" ("Forward, forward; don't step back, not even to pick up the pace") — eventually led to product endorsement deals, clothing labels, and a radio show.

In 2005, Time Magazine named Saralegui one of the “25 Most Influential Hispanics in America." In that same year she also became the first Latina to be inducted into the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame. Read the rest of this post...

Egypt's Mubarak may be dead

Had a stroke, wasn't breathing, put on life support, CNN reporting he's "clinically dead." Read the rest of this post...

Video: Groped passenger gropes TSA agent back

It's going to be interesting to see the video of the TSA agent groping the passenger, because the passenger is claiming that the TSA agent went too far. The passenger in question is a former TSA agent herself, so in theory should know. Read the rest of this post...

Five Questions: Alex Lawson of Strengthen Social Security at Netroots Nation 2012

Another Five Questions interview from Netroots Nation 2012, this time with the tireless Alex Lawson of Strengthen Social Security. (As the banner says "Strengthen Social Security ... don't cut it." You're going to like the way he thinks.)

This interview took place on the final day — the Sunday of last breakfasts and travel. By this point, a number of us were not fully well; allergies had kicked it, and a fair number of my friends arrived home processing the camp diseases.

Alex, however, was strong-voiced and full-throated. Not so I; the frogs had set up home. My apologies for that.

Alex makes a number of excellent points in this interview. I like his view of the pendulum and the future (questions 1 and 4); very thoughtful. And his answers to questions 2 and 3 (Dems and progressives) are important to consider.

And his last answer — how to be more effective in your life — made this a must-listen for me. He told me later he could have given many more suggestions; still the ones he gave are invaluable.

Five Questions: Alex Lawson with Gaius Publius, recorded on the last day of Netroots Nation 2012. Enjoy:



The full list of "Five Questions" interviews includes the following. Links to names will take you to previously-published interviews.

• Alan Grayson, former (and perhaps future) U.S. Congressman
• Marcy Wheeler, of emptywheel.net
• Cliff Schecter, who comments regularly with Sam Seder at Majority.fm among many other places
• Tom Tomorrow, cartoonist with DailyKos and This Modern World
• Alex Lawson of StrengthenSocialSecurity.org
• Josh Orton, with Russ Feingold's Progressives United
• Frances Causey, producer–director of Heist, the documentary
• Chris Pearson, a Progressive Party Vermont state legislator
• Susan Smith, Progressive Caucus chair of the Florida Democratic Party
• Sarah Burris, labor activist and progressive youth organizer

These interviews will be presented in some order in the upcoming days.

(If you have trouble with this audio, please let me know in the comments and I'll address it as quickly as I can. Thanks.)

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

House GOP determined to kill jobs bill and economy

The obstructionist GOP is doing it again. They have zero interest in doing anything that will help Americans work because they're much more interested in damaging the economy for political reasons. It's not possible to negotiate with them because they don't want to negotiate anything.

They may love to wrap themselves in the flag but underneath, they really do hate America. There's no other reason why they wouldn't be running to sign a bill that had strong support in the Senate since it's tied to 1.9 million jobs. Think Progress has more on the latest disgusting move by House Republicans.

It should noted that Representative John Mica, known for caring more about pork than national security, is part of the obstructionist movement. So unless the 1.9 million workers are going to fund his campaign, they're probably out of luck. Read the rest of this post...

Change.org is working for conservatives

There's a rather large brouhaha growing over the fact that unbeknownst to a lot of progressives, Change.org - a site a lot of folks on the left use to build free petitions - is actually a for-profit consulting firm whose clients include some rather nasty conservative causes, including anti-union and anti-teacher clients.

I'm sure the folks at Change.org would argue that they're simply in the business of making the world a better place, and part of the way you do that is by inviting all sides to participate, even conservative Republicans.  (Otherwise, why would they be accepting conservative clients while claiming that they're all about "change"?  They clearly don't find the two inconsistent.)

I'm sorry, but you're not in the business of making the world a better place if you provide tools - excuse me, charge for tools - that good guys use to make the world a better place, and bad guys use to stop good guys from making the world a better place.

Change.org sounds like the global arms dealer who claims that they're not hurting people because they sell guns to everyone. Well, of course they sell to all sides - no better way to keep the war going, and thus sell even more guns in the future.

Change.org hired a lot of our liberal friends, and some of us had qualms about the organization from the beginning - claiming themselves as a dot-org when they're really a for-profit consulting firm; leading progressives to believe that Change.org is simply a free platform for progressive petition-building (when in fact they're using people who sign those petitions to get more paying clients, including Republican clients); and now we find out that Change.org's clients include bad guys, and that they're defending that choice by arguing that bad guys do good too.

Well, no they really don't.

I've been consulting for 15 years, and have been in politics for nearly 25. I know that the money in politics tends to be on the right. And it irks me to think that I'd probably be rich today had I remained a Republican rather than switching parties two decades ago.  But I didn't stay a Republican. I chose to change from John.com to John.org.  And there's never been a question as to whose side I'm on.

Change.org, however, has been Change.com from the beginning.

And let's not even get into the other question of what that organization has done to effective advocacy by distilling all political action down to the equivalent of the Easy-Bake Oven - just pop it in and it's ready! Now everyone's an activist!

And it now becomes clear that Change.org's intent all along - or, perhaps it was only after it was clear that the money was to be made on the right - was to truly make everyone an activist, even conservatives.

I've never been comfortable with political consulting firms who play both sides. I've always said that you cannot trust staff who work both the R and the D side of an issue - even if the staff are separate,  one side of the company handles Republicans while the other side handles Democrats, good luck not have the R staffer see what the D staffer is doing, and then tell their R friends about it.  I think it's a rather large conflict of interest.

But more importantly, I think a lot of progressives would be upset if they knew that by creating, signing, or sharing a Change.org petition they were actually helping a consulting firm make a lot of money by advancing conservative causes.

Now they know. Read the rest of this post...

Poll: Obama's immigration policy has strong support

It's not clear what took so long to come to this decision, but Americans overwhelmingly support it. The overall numbers are strong, including support by independents. Bloomberg:

Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama’s June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed. Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin.

The results underscore the challenge facing Mitt Romney and Republicans as they try to woo Hispanic voters, who are the nation’s largest ethnic minority and made up 9 percent of the 2008 electorate, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of exit polls. Obama won the Hispanic vote 67 to 31 percent over Republican John McCain in 2008, according to exit polls.

“In that Republican Party, there is a tolerance problem,” said Carmen Nieves, 27, of Albany, New York, who is of Puerto Rican heritage and participated in the Bloomberg June 15-18 survey.

Indeed, there is absolutely a tolerance problem with the GOP. Read the rest of this post...

Anatomy of a Republican lie

The Republicans and the religious right deserve each other.

They're both expert at taking a lie and making it true.

The latest lie from the GOP is that the right-wing "reporter" who heckled President Obama during his immigration speech the other day was simply doing what reporters did all the time to lovable old Ronald Reagan.

And look, they even have a scanned copy of an old AP story to prove it.

Yeah, it's "proof" if you don't actually read the AP story. If you do read it you'll discover yet another beautifully woven GOP lie.

You see, as the AP report says repeatedly, the reporters yelled questions at Reagan after his statement was over, and/or after the event was over and Reagan was leaving (and in typical Reagan fashion, refusing to take any questions - remember Reagan always putting his hand to his ear pretending he could hear the questions?).

Nowhere in the AP story does it say that reporters interrupted an address by Reagan (and heckled him mid-address, no less) - something that has now happened twice to President Obama, once by a far-right GOP reporter and another by a far-right GOP member of Congress.

But it's sufficient for a conservative "newspaper" (not surprisingly, one founded by a cult) to "report" it as "fact" that the "liberal" media interrupted Reagan with yells all the time, and next you'll hear everyone on Fox News, and Limbaugh, citing this as "fact" too.

They don't have the facts on their side, so they create their own propaganda media to make the lies for them. Read the rest of this post...

Four Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition

UPDATE: A follow-up, "Goals of an Effective Progressive Coalition," appears here.
________

One of the changes I've decided to make coming out of Netroots Nation is to start writing more generally from time to time — essays and opinion pieces in addition to news and commentary.

The first of these pieces is this one: Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition (in my opinion, of course).

These rules actually apply to any coalition, but I have a specific goal in mind, so forgive me if I don't make this overly general.

By the way, I'm using capitals in the Coalition itself because I really want a proper name here, not just a description. I also want it to exist — anytime before my death would be fine with me.

Managing an Effective Progressive Coalition

An effective progressive coalition must be all three — progressive, effective, and a coalition — or it won't be worth most people's time to support.

• If it's not progressive, it's of no interest, at least to me.
• If it's not a coalition, it has no strength.
• And if it's not effective — if it can't accomplish anything — it's ultimately worse than a sham; it's a failure.

In practice, it seems to me that all of these goals will be more likely accomplished if every member of the Coalition — at the leadership level at least — adheres strictly to just four rules. These are:

Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition

1. No constituency in the Coalition takes a backward step to advance another's cause. (I call this the Cruickshank Rule; see below.)

2. Members of the Coalition have each others' back. No constituency under attack stands alone.

3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.

4. The Coalition preferences political action to discussion. (This is the No Dithering Rule.)

Though there one or two tripwires, this really isn't that complicated. You could probably have written these rules yourself, had you put your mind to it (and been forced to write).

Discussion

I'll offer a short gloss on each rule here, then expand my thoughts in the weeks ahead. I'll also respond (and perhaps adapt) to comments and suggestions, so keep those card coming in.

Note through the following the difference between progressive constituencies and progressive groups.

Working people, for example, are a constituency. A particular labor union is a group, an institution. Women are a constituency. An individual anti-abortion, or equal rights, or fair-labor organization is a group.

Sometimes groups represent constituencies, but not always. That said, onward.

Rule 1. No constituency takes a backward step (the Cruickshank Rule).

Here's Robert Cruickshank, of whom I've written before, on this principle. He articulates it this way here. In other places (for example on Sam Seder's show) he uses language like mine.

Cruickshank:

Conservatives simply understand how coalitions work, and progressives don't. Conservative communication discipline is enabled only by the fact that everyone in the coalition knows they will get something for their participation. A right-winger will repeat the same talking points even on an issue he or she doesn't care about or even agree with because he or she knows that their turn will come soon, when the rest of the movement will do the same thing for them.

And:

Progressives do not operate this way. We spend way too much time selling each other out, and way too little time having each other's back.

Does this need discussion? This is true on its face, and speaks squarely to effectiveness. Until the practice of groups trading each other out is ended, we will have no force.

Let me say that differently. Your group can trade us out if it wishes, but it's not in the core of the Coalition if it does. No seat at the table, no decision-making power. You're with us to the extent that you play nice; and no further. We will not be cut from within.

There are two ways to violate this rule:

■ One is the naked way — an immigrant group takes a deal that sells out gays; a labor union takes a deal that sells out veterans; and so on. (No, I won't offer real examples; I will not sell out my brothers and sisters that way.)

■ The second is more insidious: Some progressive constituencies are asked to wait their turn — forever.

This happened in the years after Obama was elected. He had made a set of campaign promises to various progressive constituencies — immigrants were promised the DREAM Act; gays, an end to DADT and DOMA; labor, the enactment of EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act); and so on. There were many of these promises, in exchange for which the national Democrats got much progressive support.

Then came 2009, when Democrats held the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. As an example of much that happened, let's consider just those three constituencies — gays, immigrants and the labor movement.

What did the national Democrats do? Led by Obama, but not solely by him, they told gays, immigrants and groups representing labor: "Get behind us on health care first; after that we'll enact your items."

Despite the whinging and complaining, Obama's healthcare bill passed, as each progressive group in turn fell into line.

Then what happened? No DREAM Act. No end to DADT and DOMA (at first; see below). No EFCA (even now nothing is on the table). The national Democrats got their "hamburger today"; progressives were left waiting for the Tuesday at the end of the world.

(For the positive changes that gays and immigrants did affect, look no further than Rule 3.)

There's a side benefit to strictly applying the Cruickshank Rule (no backward steps). We use the Rachet Effect to our advantage for a change. At some point, we're playing on their end of the field — for a change.

Rule 2. Members have each other's back. This is almost a Cruickshank Corollary, but it speaks to unity, to coalition itself.

If we don't stand together, we don't stand together, us at the core of this group. We're just a bunch of well-meaning entities, getting some stuff done (maybe) and inadvertently (or worse) undoing each other's accomplishments.

Not what most of us had in mind when we joined this parade.

Rule 3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.

This is both obvious and difficult. Obvious because examples abound where national Democrats and the party as a whole — dominated as it is by Rubinites and NeoLiberals, Blue Dogs (however rebranded) and conservatives — too often betray progressive values and goals.

Following this rule speaks directly to effectiveness, and applies most directly to the core of this Coalition, to its leadership level.

In essence, this rule means, the Coalition can work with Democrats (or any other group), but it can't be led by them. And when it has to fight its enemies on a given issue, it has to recognize those enemies and deal effectively with them.

Not dealing with your enemies is a recipe for disaster. Cruickshank says, in the same piece quoted above:

[T]oday's Democratic Party has two wings to it. One wing is progressive, anti-corporate, and distrusts the free market. The other wing is neoliberal, pro-corporate, and trusts the free market. ... The only reason these two antithetical groups share a political party is because the Republicans won't have either one.

At the time I printed that quote, I added this:

With Democrats, every advance of the DLC-corporate agenda is automatically a loss for progressives; and every progressive victory on taxes, for example, is always a loss for neoliberals. That baby can't be split.

Cruickshank says that Obama has his own coalition, which isn't quite identical with the Democratic "coalition." In the Obama coalition, progressives are considered always expendable by Team Where Else You Gonna Go? (They're also hated and sneered at, I'd add, but why pile on?)

Try this for hated.

The Democrats can be great partners, and the Party has many great progressive members. When they work with us, the result can be powerful.

But when the Party works against us, progressives must separate, go our own way, treat them as opposition if that's how they want to act.

How did gays get their great gains? Not by playing nice. By taking on the Democrats and winning. By challenging Obama in a room where he couldn't run away. Unapologetically.

How did immigrant constituencies get the recent part-way DREAM gain? By exploiting Obama's need for immigrant votes — in an tightening election year — when the word was spreading that Obama was tougher on deportations than Bush. (UPDATE: For more on this, go here.)

Simple, right? Practical, right?

Yet this is one of the tripwires. It's emotionally very difficult for progressives to separate from Dems. In the years I've been working this beat, I've seen it again and again. I saw it at Netroots Nation just this month.

We've supported Dems most of our lives. We've worked to elect them. In many cases they are our best professional friends.

Even progressives who see what the Party has become, treat it like an ex-spouse we still care about. We don't live together any more; but we don't want ill to befall them. We still care.

Yet to be effective, progressives have to choose between progressive goals and Party goals every time the choices conflict. If a person or group can't do that, they can help us out elsewhere, but they cannot lead.

And if they really get in the way, they'll get bit.

It's that simple. When Dems try to mislead progressives, we don't need "progressives" on the inside cheering them on.

There's a second way that "progressives" can be unfaithful to progressive causes, a way that has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. We all have careers and personal goals. This is not in itself bad.

But to use the progressive movement to preference one's own career, one's own goals at the expense of the movement itself — this also violates the rule. It's the same in effect as using the movement to advance the Rubinite Dems. Not good; not allowable behavior at the core of the Coalition.

Again, if career — or list-building, or cocktail-contact-climbing, or whatever — comes first, great. People like that can work with us, but they cannot lead.

I hope you can see why Rule 3 is necessary, at least at the leadership level. We can't be led by divided loyalties; that way lies failure.

Rule 4. The Coalition preferences action over discussion (the No Dithering Rule).

I personally like this one, but also think it's necessary. There's something about us on the left — one of our great virtues — that makes us thoughtful.

But like all god's creatures, we have the defect of our virtues — we are sometimes very thoughtful, grad-student thoughtful, dissertation thoughtful.

If you believe as I do that we're entering a period of simultaneous global deadlines — I'll have another post on that, but my current count is eight — I think not preferencing action is an indulgence, perhaps a fatal one.

I like the FDR approach. Paraphrased:

Do something. If that doesn't work, do something else.

A fine idea.

Bottom line

For once, the bottom line really is at the bottom. I tried to reduce these rules to only those needed. I think I succeeded. There are only four.

If I imagine this wonderful Coalition not strictly following any of these rules, I see failure — something like the current landscape in fact. That's not an outcome any of us wants:

• Backward steps? Loser plan.
• In-fighting? Loser plan.
• Led by Dems or careerism? Loser plan.
• Endlessly debating? Loser plan.

Pretty simple for a long post, right? A definite bottom line.

Did I miss one? Let me know in the comments. And thanks as always for your thoughtful consideration.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Millionaire Ann Romney thinks the Obamas are too much the jet-setters

This from the woman who practically has as many vacation homes as John McCain.  (Who among us has even one vacation home?  Hers are plural.)

A woman who owns numerous horses, and jockeys too apparently, and travels the world to watch them compete.

Ann Romney is just a regular gal.  If you live in the Hamptons.

I think it's in poor taste for the Romney campaign to use Mrs. Romney as a sort of ad hominem human shield, lobbing personal attacks against the Obamas while claiming spousal immunity.  It's a cute tactic, using the wife as attack dog - if you respond, they'll say you're beating up a man's wife; but apparently hiding behind your own wife, while she spreads lies about your opponent and his wife, is perfectly acceptable.

Lying for the Lord can get awfully complicated.

I hesitate to call the attack racist.  But it certainly raises some eyebrows when a white woman worth a quarter of a billion dollars lectures a black family, that brought itself up by its own bootstraps, about being too flashy with the way they spend money.

Sorry, Mrs. Romney, but flashy is when your latest home is so big that your car has its own elevator and the home has its own lobbyist.

You see, Mrs. Romney thinks the Obama's take too many vacations because they don't love their children enough.  (I wonder if she was wearing one of those thrifty $1,000 blouses while making the accusation.) From the Hill:

[Mrs.] Romney was responding to a question from WJR Detroit's Frank Beckmann, who asked Romney if her family would be vacationing abroad as frequently as the Obamas.

"I doubt that," Romney replied. "Our vacations and our happiness come from being with our children and our grandchildren."

I guess the Romneys didn't love their children and grandchildren nearly as much in 2006, when they were busy traveling the country and world for 212 of the year's 365 days.

You see, the Romneys missed 212 days in office their last year in the governorship. That's 7.5 months off in one year alone. What do the Romneys think this is, France?

Take a typical vacation year for Governor Romney, 2006 - which included visits to eight countries.  See how it compares to your typical vacation year:

* January: 11-day family vacation in Utah.
* July: Vacation at the Romney's vacation home in New Hampshire.
* August: Romney vacations in Alaska.
* December: "10-day ski vacation at his home in Deer Valley, Utah." - AP, 12/23/06.
* There were also family trips to Michigan and California, and additional trips to eight countries.

Someone's working Munchkin hours.

The Obamas, on the other hand, have had far fewer vacations than the Romneys or the Bushes. The Obamas took 70 days of vacation by November of 2011 (that would be nearly three years into his presidency). By a similar point in the Bush presidency, the Bushes had taken 225 days, over three times as much vacation time.  And we already know that the Romneys took 212 days in one year alone - that amounts to around nine times as many vacations as the Obamas.

Who's flashy now?

PS Congrats on your horse and jockey making the upcoming Olympics.  ABC reported last week that you and Mitt will be jetting to London to watch in person.  That'll show those high-fallutin' Obamas. Read the rest of this post...

France adds more women in government, still below 50%

One of the great failures of the François Mitterrand government was the failure to promote women and non-white candidates. To his credit, Nicholas Sarkozy did a considerably better job than previous governments and promoted a number of women within his team including current IMF chief Christine Lagarde. You can agree or disagree with policy choices, but that was a big step.

The new François Hollande government has appointed women to half of his cabinet, though some have argued that the number is much lower for the top level cabinet positions. Following the parliamentary elections, women now comprise 27% of the parliament, 37% for the socialists. The new parliament includes yet another LePen, the 22 year old niece of the former far right presidential candidate Jean Marie LePen. (Sarkozy's UMP delivered only 14% in the recent elections.)

It's certainly progress, but again, this is still well below the 50% target.

The result lifts France from 69th to 34th in the world for the proportion of female MPs, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an international organisation of parliaments. Britain now lies joint 55th.

éjane Sénac, a specialist in gender equality at Sciences-Po and the National Centre for Scientific Research, said there was still no egalité in the French executive. "With 73% of MPs still men, this result has confirmed that parity is a problem that needs to be dealt with. If there had not been the 'pink wave' with the Socialists winning so many seats, we wouldn't even have 27% women," she said.

Sénac called on Hollande to bar political parties from receiving public funds unless they implemented a policy of equality.

It should be noted that despite the modern women's movement having origins in the US, the US is sadly ranked number 78, far behind France and the UK for women in government. The House stands at 17% and the Senate 17% for women representatives. We need to do a lot better than this. How can we expect Washington to properly govern all Americans when the numbers are this far off? This needs to become a higher priority for both political parties. Read the rest of this post...